The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About29-Public Works ',- From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION File No.1. 7013 Adoption of Negative Declaration & Finding of Consistency with the Circulation Element of the General Plan - Rehabilitation of Tippecanoe Avenue, fron 1-10 Freeway to Mission Creek -- PH Project 96-01 Subject: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -. Dept: Public works/Engineerin~JlI(iIIV)f~ 1-06-97 Date: Synopsis of Previous Council action: Allocation of $195,000.00, in SB 300 Fund 1995/96 approved. Supplemental funds in the amount of $60,000.00 allocated in SB 300 Fund, 1996/97 Budget. Allocation of $195,000.00 in 1996/97 Storm Drain Construction Fund Budget approved. Allocation of $150,500.00 in 1996/97 Traffic Systems Fee Construction Fund, for modifying traffic signals to provide protected/permissive left turn movements, approved. June, 1996 - Allocation of $100,000 in A.D. ~994, 1996/97 Budget for installation of additio~al street lights approved. June, 1995 - June, 1996 June, 1996 - June, 1996 - Recommended motion: 1. That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 96- 01, Rehabilitation of Tippecanoe Avenue from 1-10 Freeway to Mission Creek, be adopted. AND That a finding be made that the rehabilitation of Tippecanoe Avenue frorl 1-10 to rlission Creek is 'consistent with the cir- culation element of the General Pla~~ Fred Ililson ~ _ Acting City Administrator ~ ure 2. fce: Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Staff Report, Supporting data attached: Responses to comments. Map .4.J;-.;1.:'I. O~i'i~c; Phone: 5025 Ward: 1 & 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A i J,':,:', 97 r~: u j Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Descriotion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 43..7/97 Agenda Item No. .J.. q CITY QF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 96- 01 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Com- mittee at its meeting of November 14, 1996. A 21-day public review period was afforded from September 26, 1996 to October 17, 1996. The attached comments were received and the Committee determined that all issues raised had been properly addressed in the initial study. We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a finding made that the project is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 1-06-97 75.0264 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT 96-01 (TIPPECANOE STREET MEDIAN) INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The Initial Study was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on September 19, 1996, and a Negative Declaration was proposed. The Initial Study was made available for public review and comment pursuant to State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15073(a)) for a period of 21 days from September 26, 1996 to October 16, 1996. During this review period comments were received on the Initial Study from the public on the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15074(b)) and responsible, this document has been prepared to provide a single source of comments received on the proposed Negative Declaration so that they may be considered by the Mayor and Common Council prior to making a final decision regarding adoption of the Negative Declaration and/or approval of the project. The following is a list of parties that submitted comments on the Initial Study during the public review period: A. Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, S~, Boileau & Kostoff (October 8, 1995). B. P.M. Stratz, Shell Oil Products Company (October 10, 1996). C. Van Tarver, Thrifty Oil Company (October 11, 1996). D. Rich Boyd, IN-N-OUT Burger (October 16, 1996). E. David M. Nemec, Kitchen Concepts by Harlow's (no date). ~: These Responses to Comments are the result of the cooperative effort of Mike Finn, Associate Planner of the Department of Planning and Building Services and Mike Grubbs, Senior Engineer of the Department of Public Works. . LETTER A NICHOLS. STEAD. SOILEAU & KOSTO.. A PRO"EBSION...\. CORPORATION TI[I..IE"'...O....E .9091 :198-7000 ,.,..." I'i'091 398-1000 ATTORNEYS AT LAW DONALD P. NICHOLS 11'01"'78' CHARLE. ... STEAD 1,.01-19.., ROBEAT S. HICeSON "91'7-1'92_ I"'OOT....,LL INDEPCNDENT ....NO( SUII-DING 223 WEST "OOTHILL BOULCVARD. SECOND ,...OOA CLAREMONT. CALIF"ORNIA 91711 October 8. 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: In-N-Out Burger location at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue; Your File No. 13.84 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: You will recall having received a letterfrom me dated August 21, 1996, and meeting with me and a representative of In-N-Out Burgers, Rich Boyd, to discuss your proposed project which calls for an uninterrupted median at Tippecanoe and Rosewood Drive in San Bernardino and the elimination of on street parking in the area. It is my hope that you will recall that we not only objected to the project as proposed, but also about the absence of appropriate notice of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting which would have given us the opportunity to appear and oppose the project as proposed and to support the altemative concept which would extend the median only to Rosewood Drive, continuing to permit left turns at Rosewood. As advised at our meeting of September 4, 1996, In-N-Out did not receive your offices' letter of May 21, 1996, until approximately August 15, 1996, and your meeting was conducted on or about June 12, 1996. When we left our meeting of September 4, 1996, with you and Tony Lugo, we were given to understand that the matter was to have been considered by the Environmental Review Committee approximately three (3) weeks to one (1) month hence and that special efforts would be taken to assure that Rich Boyd of In-N-Out Burger and I would receive notice of the meeting. Having heard nothing from your offices, we are now advised by letter dated October 1, 1996, that the meeting was, in fact, conducted on September 19, 1996, without notice to either Rich Boyd or me and that the committee proposed that the project receive a negative declaration. We would like to take this occasion to again request that you personally take steps to see that the internal communication procedures that are denying us the opportunity to appear ~,~, . '''.'- . NICHOLS. STEAD. BOILEAU Ii. OSTOFF " PRCI"'ESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Roger G. Hardgrave October 8, 1996 Page 2 and be heard at the appropriate meetings concerning this project are immediately corrected. In-N-Out Burger does wish to have input concerning alternative designs for this project including, but not limited to, the possibility of signalization at the intersection of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. . Please consider this letter as In-N-Qut Burgers' comment in response to Mr. Michael Grubbs' letter of October 1, 1996, and our request for the opportunity to appear and be heard at the October 17, 1996 meeting of the Environmental Review Committee. NICHOLS, TEAD, BOILEAU & KOSTOFF A prof1ssio I Corporation By \ Donald E. Bollinger DEB:gf cc: Fred Encinas Rich Boyd Michael Grubbs Antonio A. Lugo LEITJU{ A: Donald E. Bollinger Nichols, Stead, Boileau & Kostoff, Attorneys at Law 233 West Foothill Boulevard, Second Floor Claremont, CA 91711 Response to Letter A: Mr. Bollinger was verbally notified of the ERC meeting to be held on October 31, 1996 at 9:00 a.m., and he will be given appropriate notice for the Mayor and Common Council meeting at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting. Mr. Bollinger was given the opportunity to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting. No new issues were raised by Mr. Bollinger at that ERC meeting, with the exception of a request that the project be slowed down and not scheduled for the Mayor and Council until such time as there was more input. The comments are acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (fippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. . ,6 U:52 tt909 H~ 3836 SHELL 1..-1. EAST 141002:002 LETTER B Shell Oil Products Company . Los An~.Ie. East Rotail DIsfrIeI 3200 E. WMd I!mp/rt 8t.tlI .... m """'"' eo. 01714 October 10,1996 '-~ Roger G. Hardgrave City of San Bernardino 300 North MOM Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 re: Median island construction on Tippecanoe from 1-10 freeway to Laurelwood Avel)ue Project No, 95-01 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: This letter Is to express our concern with the proposed median Island construction project located along Tippecanoe Avenue. Specifically, we are concerned with the closure of the intersection at Tippecanoe and Rosewood. JCD Sheil Oil Company has owned and operated a service station at the comer of Tippecanoe and Rosewood for approximately thirty plus years, We have enjoyed doing business at this intersection and we hope to continue our operation for many years to come. The proposed median island will block cross-over traffic at the intersection of Rosewood Avenue which will have a significant detrfmental effect on our service station "2' operation. Convenient access to and from a service station operation is essential to the \f;) success of our business. The proposed median Island wflf prevent access to the station by ail south bound traffic, reducing our potential customer access by approximately 50%. As an alternative to your proposed design, we strongly encourage the Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. This traffic light would provide the neecled access to the local business. In addition, traffic flow could be easily synchronized with th1 proposed Cal Trans signal at the freeway . ~ In conclusion, we strongly oppose your current plan which will block the Intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. As an alternative, we encourage your consideration of a traffic signal Which will preserve the businesses in the area. Your consideration is a appreciated. /./114 P. M. S'ffa Area Real Estat epresentative Los Angeles East District LEITER B: P.M. Stratz Area Real Estate Representative Shell Oil Products Company 3200 E. Inland Empire Blvd, Ste 270 Ontario, CA 91784 Response to Letter B: Comment Bl: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. Comment B2: Comment noted. Section 15064(t) of the CEQA Guidelines state that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The comment is economically based and does not raise any significant environmental issues. Comment B3: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. There is not sufficient space to provide the necessary stacking for vehicles at the approaches of the freeway ramps during peak hours and signal timing will not resolve the stacking problem. For further detail and discussion, please refer to Response to Letter D, Comment D5 Response. fD)~@~O\Yl~~ ln1 OCT 17 1996 ~ LETTER C ("11 ~~ THRIFTV OIL CO. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING IlL BUILDING SERVICES Van S. Tarver, Senior Vice-President Retail Via Facsimile and U. SMail October 11, 1996 Michael W. Grubbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino City Hall 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 96-01 MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE A VENUE THRIFfY OIL NO. 345 1945 TIPPECANOE A VENUE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Grubbs: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil Co. 's unequivocal objection to the above-~eferenced] f\'. Public Works median project in the City of San Bcrnardino, California. ~ Thrifty Oil Co. operates an Arco service station and Sunshine Food Store at the above-referenced address. Our preliminary estimates indicate the proposed median project will quite literally cut our business and revenue in half; more specifically, Thrifty would suffer a loss of revenue between 0 $75,000.00 and $100,000.00 per month. Without a doubt this would necessitate Thrifl;y Oil to terminate and abandon our operation at this site in the City of San Bernardino. Thrifty is supportive of the City's efforts to provide aesthetic improvements along the City,s] thoroughfares. However, when said improvements jeopardize the economic well-being of the City's businesses, then there needs to be a serious re-examination of the proposed improvements. Thrifty G) would be more than happy to sit down with the City's staff to discuss various alternatives to the proposed improvements. Please reserve a time for us to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review committee] t7I\ hearing. Furthermore, we reserve the right to provide additional testimony in both verbal and written & form. ~ V 1??oo Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90240' (310) 923'9876' (714) 522-3244' Fax: (310) 869-9739 Ifwe can be ofany further assistance, please feel free to contact myself or David Rose at (310) 923- 9876. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Best regards, cc: Tom Minor, Mayor Betty Dean-Anderson, Councilmember Rita Arias, Councilmember Fred Curlin, Councilmember Jerry Devlin, Councilmember Norine MiIler, Councilmember Edward Negrete, Councilmember David Oberhelman, Councilmember Shauna Clark, City Administrator Roger Hardgrave, Public Works/Engineering Director Mike Hays, Planning and Building Services Director Gus Romo, Assistant Planner Vince Le Pore, III, Esq. David Rose LEITER C: Van Tarver Senior Vice President Thrifty Oil Company 1??oo Lakewood Boulevard Downey, CA 90240 Response to Letter C: Comment C1 Re!jpOnse: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project.No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. Comment C2 Re!jpOnse: Comment noted. Section 15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines state that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The comment is economically based and does not raise any significant environmental issues. Comment C3 Re!jpOnse: Comment noted. See Response to Comment C2 above. Comment C4 Resoonse: Comment noted. Mr. Tarver spoke at the Environmental Review Committee meeting of October 17, 1996. Mr. Tarver indicated that they had never received notice of any of the previous meetings (Traffic Safety, or the ERC meeting of September 19, 1996). He reiterated the economic concerns contained in this comment letter. Noticing for the ERC meeting of the September 19, 1996 was in accordance with the City procedures and the Brown Act. Noticing for the Traffic Safety Committee meeting of June 12, 1996 is not an environmental issue addressed by CEQA. The economic concerns are not addressed under CEQA as significant effects on the environment. . ~ LETTER D 142 P01 OCT 16 '96 17:05 1J.'i02 H,lII'llbu'1t' une B..ldwin Pirk, C.fiforniol !U706.588S (71.) SQ906%OO ~ IN-N-OUT '- BURGIR The Best Enblrpriio I. A froe Enterpri.. "God 8.... Amorlc.o" OCTOBER 16,1996 PAGE I OF 2 ROGER HARDGRAVE, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418-0001 RE: MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE AVENUE FROM THE 1-10 FREEWAY TO HOSPITALITY LANE Dear Roger: In-N-Out Burger oyms and operates a double drive-thru restaurant at the northwest comer - of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive. The address is 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue. This restaurant was constnlcted in February of 1984 and has been an important fixture in the City business community for the last twelve years. Weare in strong opposition to the construction of a proposed raised median in Tippecanoe A venue in front of Rosewood Drive and our store. About half of our customers utilize Rosewood Drive to enter and leave our store. Most of our customers come from the freeway ramp system at Tippecanoe or they are citizens who live and work south of the freeway. Our driveway off Tippecanoe Avenue is not the desired access CD point for our site because there is a conflict between the vehicles who want to utilize the driveway for access to and from the site, and the vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane to place their order since the drive-thru lane entrance is within IS feet of the driveway approach at the street. Construction of the proposed raised median through the Rosewood Drive intersection and our store's access driveway would force our customers coming from the south to make a U-turn at Laurelwood Drive. Currently this intersection is not signalized; the proposed CD single, left turn pocket at this intersection provides a storage for only three cars. We feel that this pocket is too short and would force too many vehicles to make a U-turn thereby reducing the operating capacity of this intersection. Providing a proposed raised median thro~lgh the Rosewood Drive intersection and stopping it south of our existing driveway ofYTippecanoe A venue as iProposed by Michael Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineer for the City, in his October 91 letter to us, is also unacceptable. The existing problem as outlined above, with the vehicle conflicts of those who want to use this driveway as those vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane will only worsen to such an extent that our operation will suffer, and the likelihood of ~ accidents will increase significantly. It is very likely that vehicles will end up backing out onto Tippecanoe Avenue. In addition, there is no room for vehicles traveling northbound to transition and wait to turn left into our driveway without blocking the northbound through lanes. Also, the potential addition of the raised median up to Laurelwood Drive still remains 'With the City as traffic increases in the future. Therefore this second option is only a temporary one at best. ',/ 142 P02 OCT 16 '96 17:05 We would propose that nothing be done at this intersection at this time. We recognize and hope that the redevelopment of the former Notton Air Force Base \\rill occur at some time in the future. However, until a specific project has been approved, ....ith financing ~ and tenants in place, of sufficient size and scope to warrant these improvements, we do \:Y not want them to be constructed now. Who knows, it may be 10 or 20 years from now until the proposed development is built and the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation at this location. \\-'hen the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation in front of our store and Rosewood Drive, we would recommend that a new traffic signal be installed at this intersection which would allow full turning movements. We recognize the fact that this signal would be within 250 feet of the existing signalized west bound freeway on and off-ramp system. However, we feel that this new signalized intersection at Rosewood Drive could be tied into and coordinated efficiently y,ith the CalTrans westbound freeway ramp signal. The signalized intersections of Tippecanoe Avenue with Redlands Drive @ and with the eastbound freeway on and off ramp system work efficiently now in a similar situation. These last two mentioned intersections are located approximately 300 feet apart at approximately 950 feet and 650 feet south of Rosewood Drive respectively. Even though it may not be an ideal setup, all four intersections could operate efficiently together so long as they were properly coordinated with CalTrans and each other. We have talked with the other current property owners at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive and they were not aware of the City proposed raised median. They expressed their surprise and also echoed our strong opposition to the t7Q\ proposed raised median aCross Tippecanoe at Rosewood. The other property oy,ners are \:::./ as follows: Arco- Thrifty Oil for their gas station at the northeast comer; Shell Oil for their gas station at the southeast COT:1er; and Rancon Realty in Temcula for their vacant property at the southwest corner. In summary, we are obviously in favor of providing a safe route for our customers and we feel that based on current traffic conditions one exists now. Once traffic levels have reached a threshold where mitigation is required, or at least the construction of the G) proposed developments which would create this increase in traffic are imminent, a new tratTlc signal at the intersection of Rosewood Drive should be installed along with the proposed raised median both nonh and south of this intersection. Thank you for this opportunity to address this issue which is so important to our restaurant. Please keep us infomled as to any upcoming meetings or change in plans so that we can continue [0 voice our opinion. Sincerely, IN-N-OuT BURGER ~dC~.'o. Rich Boyd ~~ e....- Vice President of Real Estate and Development cc: Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau and Kostoff Mark S. Lamoureux, MSL Engineering Inc. Mary Coppola, In-N-Out Burger Real Estate Finance Manger Fred Encinas, In-N-Out Burger Director of Real Estate Raymund Villanueva, In-N-Out Burger Manager of Development LETrER D: Rich Boyd Vice President of Real Estate and Development IN-N-OUT Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 Response to Letter D: Comment Dl R~nse: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. Comment D2 Re!lPOnse: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. Comment D3 Resoonse: City staff has reviewed the comment and does not agree with the opinion expressea. The comment will be included in the record of the Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by appropriate decision makers. The existing situation in the area is already serious and warrants immediate attention. The comment suggests that as a result of the project the operation of the In-N-Out restaurant will suffer. Although the comment does not state how the operation will suffer, it is assumed that Mr. Boyd is referring to business operation. Section 15064(t) of the CEQA Guidelines state that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The comment further suggests that the likelihood of accidents will increase, but no evidence is provided to support this claim. The comment does not raise any significant new environmental issues. Comment D4 Re!lPOnse: City staff has reviewed the comment and does not agree with the opinion expressed. The comment will be included in the record of the Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by appropriate decision makers. The median project as proposed is intended to address an existing serious traffic congestion problem in the area and not future development or growth at the former Norton Air Force Base, although the median would be further extended as development and growth at the former base occurs. Traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue going to and from the 1-10 Freeway has increased dramatically in the past 10 years and is causing serious traffic congestion at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue with Rosewood Avenue. A traffic study prepared in 1992 for the Tri-City Land Use Plan determined that this intersection is presently operating at Level of Service (LOS) F (gridlock) and recommended that Rosewood Avenue west of Tippecanoe Avenue be realigned north to intersect Tippecanoe Avenue at Laurelwood Avenue. This realignment, when completed, will allow sufficient distance from the freeway ramp signals to provide proper left turn stacking for northbound to westbound traffic. The Traffic Study viewed the realignment as a long term measure and recommended, as an interim measure to alleviate the existing traffic congestion and traffic safety problem, that left turning movements at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Avenue be controlled by installation of a raised concrete median island. The Department of Public Works/City Engineer has a budgeted project to rehabilitate Tippecanoe Avenue from the 1-10 Freeway to Mission Creek; therefore, this is the logical time to construct the median island. Hence, the median island is needed immediately as a traffic safety measure and is proposed to be extended to the north in the future, as traffic volumes on Tippecanoe Avenue increase due to projected growth a World Trade Center and the San Bernardino International Airport. Comment D5 Re!lPOnse: City staff has reviewed the comment and does not agree with the opinion expressed. The comment will be included in the record of the Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by appropriate decision makers. The traffic study prepared for the Tri-City Land Use Plan recommended that left turn pocket storage, for northbound to westbound traffic at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, be 349 feet desirable and 230 feet minimum. However, there is only 210 feet available between Rosewood Avenue and the existing signalized intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue with the 1-10 freeway westbound to northbound off-ramp. Hence, the installation of a signal at Rosewood Avenue would result in a long line of stacked cars to the approaches of the freeway ramps during peak hours. Signal timing cannot alleviate this problem. Cars weaving across lanes, for westbound off-ramp traffic to Rosewood, would also be a serious safety problem. This situation has occurred elsewhere in the City. At Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane, for example, this has created serious problems which have been very difficult and costly to solve. The City was able to get the freeway off-ramp moved from Waterman Avenue to Carnegie Avenue in that instance, and this action has partially alleviated the problem. A similar option is not available at Tippecanoe Avenue. Construction of traffic signals too close to busy freeway ramps has caused serious congestion and traffic safety problems in many communities along freeway and the City wishes to avoid repeating those problems here. Comment 06 Resoonse: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. Comment 07 Re$pOnse: City staff has reviewed the comment and does not agree with the opinion expressed. The comment will be included in the record of the Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by appropriate decision makers. Traffic has already reached a level at which mitigation is required. See Comment 03 Response for a complete discussion. The installation of a traffic signal at Rosewood is not a feasible alternative. See Comment 05 Response for a complete discussion. Comment D9 Re$pOnse: The comment is acknowledged and will be included in the record of Public Works Project No. 96-01 (Tippecanoe Median Project) project for review and consideration by the appropriate decision makers. ,/ ---- LETTER E -. ~ KITCHEN CoNCEPTS By Harlow's Est. 1921 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING 300 NORTH 'D' ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 Dear Sirs: In regards to the planned improvements for Tippecanoe, we have two important concerns: 1 . , Center divider (median) between Laurelwood and Coulston/ Hospitality Lane - it is fully known and understood there is a serious problem with traffic flow and congestion from the freeway to Rosewood. A center divider through to Laurelwood is definitely a partial solution (if Rosewood is not closed completely.) However, based on the soley speculative traffic flow figures through to former Norton A.F.B., we feel a median continuing from Laurelwood to Hospitality Lane would be a waste and a serious impairment to our business located at 1879 Tippecanoe (east side of street). Of course, southbound traffic would have no direct access to our facility and customers and heavy trucks leaving would have to travel north and then U-turn back south again. We predict extreme financial hardship at this point and feel a median should be considered at a much later date, when and if projected traffic flow does, in fact occur. CD ~ 2. Drainage/flood control - our particular location has always had a somewhat serious and worrisome water problem during even light rains. It has been fortunate that the shoulder has been "non-operational" as it is common to have puddles extend at least to the 1st lane and sometimes beyond. It will, however, be extremely dangerous to have through traffic hit these puddles at speed, as well as flood the front of our store (approx. 15' from curb). We know this problem is being addressed, but, do want to be assured water will be successfully channeled away. I- @ 3.i-n.c.erely, / / ) \ :-.< / . L-__ __. '--David M. Nemec Owner, Harlow's Kitchen Concepts 1879 Tippecanoe. San Bernardino. CA 92408 · (909) 796-0264 33561 Yucaipa Blvd. · Yucaipa. CA 92399 . (909) 790-3345 FAX (909) 799-6457 LEITER E: David M. Nemec Owner, Harlow's Kitchen Concepts 1879 Tippecanoe San Bernardino, CA 92408 Response to Letter E: Comment EI Resoonse: City staff has reviewed the comment and does not agree with the opinion expressed. The comment will be included in the record of the Public Works Project No. 96-01 (TippeCanoe Median Project) for review and consideration by appropriate decision makers. The proposal to install the median is not based on speculative traffic flow figures through the former Norton Air Force Base, but is an action necessary to eliminate an existing serious traffic congestion problem in the area. For further explanation, see Response to Letter D, Comment D5 Response. The comment regarding concern over financial hardship is an economic concern and is not addressed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15064(t) of the CEQA Guidelines state that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Comment 2 Re~nse: Comment noted. The comment does not raise any environmental issues. The drainage in this area is an existing problem and is not the result of the Tippecanoe Median proposal. However, the Department of Public Works has plans to provide interim storm drain improvements in the area which will help alleviate much of the existing drainage problems addressed in the comment. --........... '" 0: o . ::::~ - .. '" "'lA.RCT ....\: C~E'1 I / , ~VEflI,",E ~~u~" STRfET / LANE COULSTON .. > ~ LAUREL WOOC DRIVE ROSEWOO!; '" .. 3 FREEWAY ! !r10 / IlElUlClS VICINITY N. T. S. ATTACHMENT A . - .'-".~'" -, .... I C"!' OFi iJ. AvENUE RA:1,.ROAC . I .. .. .. 0: ~ " MISSION CRaK "AROT S7REET "IAR['T S"!" A ~ ~S'" .. S7;;EE"!" tJI .. 0: CAIJI~IiS'7. .. '" STREET * z .. .. '" .. .. 0: .. 0: .. % ... !:! 0: f~.' 1.-\0 8OI.UVAIlll (PROJECT LOCATION I MAP